D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[clearstream]

Hmmm... Not sure if I agree with your assessment here and I'm worried that you are reading what you wanna read rather than what some of us, such as myself have said. In my case, for example, I don't think that (1) "all TTRPGs contain an unwritten rule zero;" instead, it's more that I believe that hacking, house rules, and modifications are a natural byproduct of gamers engaging in the hobby. I think that calling it an "unwritten rule zero" implies real credence to "rule zero" as a rules concept here, but that's not really the case at all. I think that misunderstands both the function of rules and what's actually transpiring.

So if some TTRPGs do not contain an unwritten rule zero, and folk are saying that they can do whatever they could do with a written rule zero without a written rule zero (the analogy was given of Dumbo letting that feather go), can you say something more about that? On surface, it contains contradictions.

It sounds like you have something specific in mind about "implies real credence" and "that's not really the case". As it's demonstrably possible to form a Rule Zero and give it normative effect. Would it be right to suppose you mean "speaking subjectively, it lacks credence"? As you go on to say in your edit -

Edit: My additional concern with the presumption that "all TTRPGs contain an unwritten rule zero," is that it risks smuggling in other cultural assumptions (particularly from prevailing schools of thought in D&D play cultures) about what "rule zero" entails in games that lack a Rule Zero.

I agree with you on this. No one can predict exactly what unwritten principles include (which is what I stated above.)

Could you accept the contention that there is a principle in play in all TTRPGs that is something like rule zero, and you are able to (and hopefully will) articulate the cultural assumptions you fear it could smuggle in so as to separate those out and address thought toward them? Those cultural assumptions amount to unwritten principles held by adherents of those "prevailing schools of thought in D&D play cultures", right? Implying that they are in addition to rule zero, and not part of rule zero? For adherents, written rule zero has "real credence".

 

[Aldarc]

So if some TTRPGs do not contain an unwritten rule zero, and folk are saying that they can do whatever they could do with a written rule zero without a written rule zero (the analogy was given of Dumbo letting that feather go), can you say something more about that? On surface, it contains contradictions.

(1) "All TTRPGs contain an unwritten Rule 0" and "People can/will hack TTRPGs regardless of whether there is a Rule 0 or not" are not the same or equivalent positions. You are looking at the effects - i.e., participants can change the rules - and declaring that ergo all TTRPGs contain an unwritten Rule Zero. IMHO, this is an erroneous conclusion.

(2) Dumbo thinks he needs a magic feather to fly; however, Dumbo doesn't need a magic feather to fly. In fact, the feather isn't magical at all. I compared Rule 0 to Dumbo's magic feather. You have effectively declared in your first proposition the thesis that all TTRPGs have invisible magic feathers. TTRPGs can be hacked without a magic feather called Rule 0. Then saying that, therefore, "all TTRPGs have a written or unwritten Rule 0 at play" here ignores the fact that Rule 0 is entirely unnecessary for that process. We can safely ignore Rule 0 in the same way that Dumbo can ignore the feather. We don't need to talk about Rule 0's at all. It's redundant, meaningless, and pointless as a rule for the ends of changing the rules.

(3) And this gets to the next point: there are so many accumulated, nebulous ideas surrounding about what 'Rule 0' entails - including things such as "the GM is God Almighty" - that I find that the continued acknowledgement of 'Rule 0' does more harm than good as a concept. When we say that "all TTRPGs contain an unwritten Rule 0," then we risk bringing in those ideas to games that don't share the same idea about what play entails, the GM/players' role, the relationship of participants to the rules, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "implies real credence" and "that's not really the case". It's certainly possible to form a Rule Zero and give it normative effect. Do you mean "speaking subjectively, it lacks credence"? Perhaps expanding with "and here are my motives for saying that". As you go on to say -

Saying that "all TTRPGs contain an unwritten Rule 0" implies that these other games have a Rule 0 of some form or another. This argument gives credence to both the validity of Rule 0 as a rules concept and the presence of Rule 0 as a rule (written or otherwise) in other games. IMHO, that idea is untenable garbage.

I don't think that Rule 0 is necessary. I don't even think that Rule 0 is a good idea. It is not because I believe that all TTRPGs have an unwritten Rule 0. It's because I believe that game hobbyists are gonna be game hobbyists, and game hobbyists are gonna hack, modify, and house rule games however they darn well please regardless of anything anyone says or does otherwise. TTRPGs don't need a Rule 0, written or unwritten, anymore than any other form of game does. Therefore, trying to chalk that up by saying that there must be a Rule 0 for all games seems ridiculous to me.

I don't need or want cook books, for example, to have a Rule 0 with platitudes that blows smoke up my butt about being the Chef and master of my kitchen to know that I and others can change the ingredients or cooking methods described in the recipe. I can just do it. No Rule 0 required. It's not because its an invisible or unwritten rule of cooking. And nothing is gained IMHO by pretending that my cooking would be improved by pretending that such a Rule 0 existed anymore than pretending that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy exist.

Is your position then that you accept the contention that there is a principle in play in all TTRPGs that is somewhat like rule zero, and you are able to (and hopefully will) articulate the cultural assumptions you fear it could smuggle in (so as to separate those out and address thought toward them)? For avoidance of doubt, those cultural assumptions amount to unwritten principles held by adherents of those "prevailing schools of thought in D&D play cultures" that they include in their play. Right? Implying that they are in addition to rule zero, and not part of rule zero?

I think that the framing of Rule 0 puts a lot of this discussion in terms of D&D and its prevailing norms, particularly in regards to GMs, which may or may not be shared in the wider hobby.

Even within the gaming culture of D&D and its ilk, there are a fairly wide variety of differing opinions throughout the games' history about what what is sometimes retroactively (if not inaccurately) called 'Rule 0.' There is a blog somewhere that walks through the history of "Rule 0," if one could even say such a thing, in D&D. It does vary fairly considerably. As I cited earlier, how 3e D&D first used and understood the term 'Rule 0' differs from how a variety of people in this thread understand its meaning and scope.

 

[soviet]

Yeah there are two separate propositions here:

1. Users of an RPG can change the rules if they want to.
2. The GM has unilateral authority to change the rules if they want to.

Abandoning 2 doesn't mean abandoning 1. Saying that the GM can't just decide in secret to resolve things by fiat doesn't mean that our playgroup is helpless to convert our DitV game to be about Jedi.

 

[Oofta]

I think all games can be changed if the group wants. As a kid we played what we called "Nuclear Risk" where each player had a small number of nukes to use in the game. They're just games after all.

Whether the DM for an RPG has or should have carte blanche to change the game is another story. I think D&D works fine with it, as long as the DM is up front about what they change. Some people have small booklets of house rules, mine would fit on a single page if you don't count lore about the world and it's mythology. Just set expectations when we start the campaign and we're good to go.

Saying that GM having authority is inherently good or bad is what I disagree with. If you don't want the DM in D&D to have final authority, that's fine. I prefer DM authority because makes the game run smoother and every DM I've ever known takes people's preferences into account. Even reasonable people can disagree. All I'm asking is that we stop the meaningless "Think of the children!" "The evil DM must be stopped" argument. It's just a way of shutting down discussion. Taking away rule 0 isn't going to make a bad DM a good one.

 

[pemerton]

I'm another poster in agreement with @Aldarc, @chaochou and @soviet.

It seems obvious that people engaged in a rule-based pastime (like RPGing) can, by express or implicit agreement, change the rules of that pastime.

This does not mean that every rule-based pastime has, as one of its rules, an express or implicit permission (vested in one or more participants) to change its rules. There are some rules-systems that may require such a rule - eg constitutional orders (although even there it's contested - eg some constitutional theorists and constitutional traditions take the view that its always open to constituent power to reconstitute the polity regardless of the existing constitutional rules). But for pastimes like RPGing, where the authority of the rules has no grounding beyond moment-to-moment social agreement to follow them, of course people can change them however they want.

 

[soviet]

All I'm asking is that we stop the meaningless "Think of the children!" "The evil DM must be stopped" argument. It's just a way of shutting down discussion. Taking away rule 0 isn't going to make a bad DM a good one.

You keep arguing against these points, but I haven't seen anyone arguing for them. I don't think they're positions anyone here holds.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm another poster in agreement with @Aldarc, @chaochou and @soviet.

It seems obvious that people engaged in a rule-based pastime (like RPGing) can, by express or implicit agreement, change the rules of that pastime.

This does not mean that every rule-based pastime has, as one of its rules, an express or implicit permission (vested in one or more participants) to change its rules. There are some rules-systems that may require such a rule - eg constitutional orders (although even there it's contested - eg some constitutional theorists and constitutional traditions take the view that its always open to constituent power to reconstitute the polity regardless of the existing constitutional rules). But for pastimes like RPGing, where the authority of the rules has no grounding beyond moment-to-moment social agreement to follow them, of course people can change them however they want.

Right. Anyone can change any game. I've even seen variants of Chess Monopoly with different rules. The point of a written Rule 0 isn't to allow people to change the game. It's to make it easier for the DM to change the game as a written Rule 0 is perceived as official and that perception means that the players are far more likely to accept a change than if there was no written Rule 0.

 

[Aldarc]

Rule Zero: there is no Rule Zero.

Can GMs use Rule Zero to declare that Rule Zero doesn't exist in their game?

 

[clearstream]

Yeah there are two separate propositions here:

1. Users of an RPG can change the rules if they want to.
2. The GM has unilateral authority to change the rules if they want to.

Abandoning 2 doesn't mean abandoning 1. Saying that the GM can't just decide in secret to resolve things by fiat doesn't mean that our playgroup is helpless to convert our DitV game to be about Jedi.

A restatement

1. Users of an RPG can change the rules if they want to.
2. The GM is authorised to exercise 1. unilaterally.

In 2. the GM could probably be any one participant, such as via the "birthday rule", so it can be restated further that

1. Users of an RPG can change the rules if they want to.
2. One participant is authorised to exercise 1. unilaterally.
3. The GM is that participant.

So then, in terms of what one decides to be lacking credence, dislikeable, or whatever motive one has for choosing, one can object to 1., 2., or 3. as hierachically separate propositions. One can say (as many in this thread have) "I am happy with 1. but I do not accept 2. or 3." Or one can equally well say, "I am happy with 1. and 2., but not 3."

Picture another rule

N. Users of this RPG cannot change the rules.

So long as participants put rule N. in place for themselves (as they do for any rule, for any RPG) then it creates an RPG in which 1. isn't true.

 

[clearstream]

(1) "All TTRPGs contain an unwritten Rule 0" and "People can/will hack TTRPGs regardless of whether there is a Rule 0 or not" are not the same or equivalent positions. You are looking at the effects - i.e., participants can change the rules - and declaring that ergo all TTRPGs contain an unwritten Rule Zero. IMHO, this is an erroneous conclusion.

For clarity, I didn't conclude that at all. My process of thought was that I had noted that in previous threads folk who were posting here in apparent acceptance of (what could be characterised as) an unwritten rule zero had in other threads repudiated rule zero. That indicated that what they wrote contained important further nuance.

I therefore created an opportunity for that nuance to be unpacked, by summarising what the arguments might look like on surface.

We don't need to talk about Rule 0's at all. It's redundant, meaningless, and pointless as a rule for the ends of changing the rules.

I disagree that it is is pointless. It might not be a rule that you desire, but given that you can differentiate it from another rule with a somewhat similar affect (1. Users of an RPG can change the rules if they want to) it stands as a possible rule. (It changes or conditions 1., making it work differently.)

(3) And this gets to the next point: there are so many accumulated, nebulous ideas surrounding about what 'Rule 0' entails - including things such as "the GM is God Almighty" - that I find that the continued acknowledgement of 'Rule 0' does more harm than good as a concept. When we say that "all TTRPGs contain an unwritten Rule 0," then we risk bringing in those ideas to games that don't share the same idea about what play entails, the GM/players' role, the relationship of participants to the rules, etc.

There are nebulous ideas about all kinds of things RPG relies on. Rule zero isn't exceptional in that regard. What's important is the risk you outline of unintentionally smuggling other rules in with it (2. One participant is authorised to exercise 1. unilaterally; and 3. The GM is that participant.)

Saying that "all TTRPGs contain an unwritten Rule 0" implies that these other games have a Rule 0 of some form or another. This argument gives credence to both the validity of Rule 0 as a rules concept and the presence of Rule 0 as a rule (written or otherwise) in other games. IMHO, that idea is untenable garbage.

This seems like a subjective assessment. It's tenable for adherents of some modes of play.

I don't think that Rule 0 is necessary. I don't even think that Rule 0 is a good idea. It is not because I believe that all TTRPGs have an unwritten Rule 0. It's because I believe that game hobbyists are gonna be game hobbyists, and game hobbyists are gonna hack, modify, and house rule games however they darn well please regardless of anything anyone says or does otherwise. TTRPGs don't need a Rule 0, written or unwritten, anymore than any other form of game does. Therefore, trying to chalk that up by saying that there must be a Rule 0 for all games seems ridiculous to me.

I think I've explained what a written rule zero looks like, and how it's distinct from a general norm of changing what we like.

I think that the framing of Rule 0 puts a lot of this discussion in terms of D&D and its prevailing norms, particularly in regards to GMs, which may or may not be shared in the wider hobby.

Exactly!